Here I just posted the quote from the stackoverflow blog and an earlier discussion. Why did it receive 3 downvotes?
This doesn't seem to be about disagreement since the gist of other up voted answer is also the same.
What is this about then?
In general, I always like to restate the central points even when I'm linking to a meta question or help page. "The answer is blahdeblah, and you can read [here] or [there] for more information for why that is the case and how the decision was originally made."
So I think your answer would be better if the central points (pro and con) of the commitment phase discussion were incorporated, not just a link. While "link rot" risk isn't a significant risk as usual, having the information on our meta is appropriate now that we're in beta. Likely many of the private beta users didn't thoroughly read or consider the Area 51 discussions when they first committed :)
It's also worth noting that site policies are subject to change depending on community discussion and developments over time. (This is particularly true in the private beta phase. Since we never actually tried asking and answering woodworking questions before, it is only in theory that we think they can be on topic. [I personally think they are, but because of a demonstrated interest and capacity, not because somebody said so months ago.]) Also, individual sites can have varying guidelines and policies. When indicating "this is what another site says about [meta question]", explain why that's also relevant for our community of users.
Likely because it wasn't relevant at all.
It was a personalized answer to the discussion, and it really didn't add much: the only part of the answer is just a quote from an outdated blog post.
Meta symbols disagreement. Voting is anonymous. People on meta vote more freely - as it is, there's no rep or crazy shiny things that are important here anyway.